New Mandala

11 responses so far ↓

• 1 New Mandala » Some grassroots views on Thaksin and the coup // Oct 26, 2006 at 9:10 am

  [...] As I have written ealier, much of the ideological justification for Thailand’s coup rests on the view that Thaksin’s electoral mandate was illegitimate given that it was “bought” from a politically naive and unsophisticated rural electorate. The so-called pro-democracy movement of Sondhi Limthonkul makes much of the need to educate the rural masses before they can play a legitmate part in the electoral system. The elitist and undemocratic stereotype of rural ignorance is one that I am committed to challenge. [...]

• 2 sudseng // Nov 12, 2006 at 7:53 pm

  Sondhi Limthonkul not pro-democracy the true color of him is pro-dictator .He can do every thing for benefit of himself. He use his media to destrol the politician who not give the thing he want.
  In Thailand ,you better not believe in medias ,especially newspapers. Almost all of them support janta dictator and not respect to the majority vote of Thai people.

• 3 nganadeeleg // Nov 12, 2006 at 10:35 pm

  Andrew, I suggest you re-read your article again.

  You did a fairly good job outlining the problems with the Thaksin government (muslim south human rights abuses, extra-judicial killings during the war on drugs, legal manipilations to avoid paying tax etc) – and yet he was not voted out.

  You have already answered the question regarding the need to educate the rural masses.

• 4 Vichai N. // Nov 12, 2006 at 11:22 pm

  General Sonthi’s coup was inevitable to prevent bloodshed. Thaksin Shinawatra clearly intended to cling on to power despite his flawed mandate . Thaksin had demonstrated before that he was capable of provoking his rural followers to confront the urbans and blood on the streets meant national emergency by which to justify his own coup. Thaksin Shinawatra was intent on doing a Ferdinand Marcos on Thailand to evade scrutiny into his abuses, corruption and illgotten wealth.

  And the Thais themselves, in the end, set their own path to their particular democracy, Thai style. The path to democracy is a learning process. The democratic aspirations are generally the same: freedom, representation, a government of the people and for the people for every country. Each country would endeavor to emulate models from the more developed countries like USA or UK to adapt to their culture and circumstances. But the learning process never stops and the determination to weed out obstacles to the democratic path never wavers.

  Because that determination will always be tested, sometimes dearly. Because there will always be monsters along the way who would derail that path because certain basic democracy tenets of freedom of speech, checks & balances, transparency and accountability, and basic freedom of equal opportunity to all, would obstruct monsters who are invariably corrupt, obsessed with absolute power and intolerant of criticisms. The monster had to be slain to redirect the country back to the democratic path and ideals. At critical times when a monster had to be slain, democracy had to be dearly paid for in blood.

  Dearly paid for in blood: Thanom and Suchinda.

  Had General Sonthi not thwarted Thaksin Shinawatra on Sept. 19/2006, ‘dearly paid for in blood’ would have horrifically been visited upon Thailand by that monster Thaksin Shinawatra, like Thanom and Suchinda before him.

• 5 Nirut // Nov 13, 2006 at 12:54 am

  Hobby, good point, what makes anyone think that any of these constitute a reason not to vote for Thaksin if you are a rural farmer…at what point does one or two dodgy corporate deals, human rights, and the occassional spate of extrajudicial killings and violence in the south matter to someone who grew up in Isan under Sarit or whose parents did,when extrajudicial killings were all the craze and now when muslim extremists are being said to be the scourge of the civilised world…what else should Thaksin, a Primeminister, do in his position?

• 6 nganadeeleg // Nov 13, 2006 at 9:51 am

  I agree, it is perfectly understandable that they vote for Thaksin, but that does not mean that Thaksin is the right prime minister. It’s all a matter of circumstances, knowledge and education.
  Thaksin could have been so good, but what a disappontment he was.
  If he is such a friend of the rural poor, why set up a British Virgin Island company and avoid paying tax?

  You asked what else should Thaksin does as prime minister?:
  1. Ok have a war on drugs, but do not encourage or allow extra-judicial killings
  2. Do not use an iron fist to inflame the problems in the muslim south.
  3. Pay proper taxes and work to eliminate corruption everywhere, not selectively.
  4. Do not promote your friends to powerful positions
  5. Do not split the country by playing off rural against urban in a dangerous game.
  6. Conduct your personal business affairs with integrity, and do not use your elected position to help those businesses.

  That’s just a start. You should note that I do not think that all Thaksins pilicies were bad, and I do not place much credence in many of Sondhi’s criticisms of Thaksin.

  I’m trying to understand the thought processes of a Thaksin (TRT) voter (assuming that vote buying does NOT come into the equation) :

  2001 Election – OK, he is super rich, but lets give him a go

  2005 Election – He’s done some good things for us, but also there have been some problem areas – extra-judicial killings, Tak Bai etc – thats in the past, so OK still support him

  2006 Election – He’s split the country, used legal loopholes to avoid paying tax on billions , moving his people into powerful positions etc
  Now here is where I start to have difficulty understanding why someone would continue to support Thaksin – there is ample evidence that he does not have the best interests of the country and it’s people at heart – he is in it for personal greed, ego, power etc
  Are your personal circumstances so dire, that you would prefer to ignore all the problems and potentially split the country and continue to support Thaksin?

  Post coup – what thought processes must be involved for a voter to still support Thaksin today?
  I can come up with two:
  1. Thaksin helped me, and that’s all I care about (IMHO maybe some education would be needed here, because that person might also vote for Hitler)
  2. Thaksin helped me, and I don’t like it how those people in the city are rich and we are still poor (IMHO a little more education would help here, because Thaksin has clearly shown with the Temasek deal where his heart really lies)

  Anyone care to offer a few more reasons to still support Thaksin?
  Nirut, Andrew, Pundit, Frustrated etc – here is your chance.

  Of course, all of the above analysis might change if ‘vote buying’ does really exist, because then it just comes down to who has the deeper pockets.

• 7 Nirut // Nov 13, 2006 at 3:47 pm

  Hobby, understanding the cultural dimensions of violence as I outlined in the other thread does not constitute condoning genocide, it in fact allows for the possibility of preventing future incidence.

  Now I would be interested to know to some degree, without compromising your anonimity on this site, what your interest in Thai (and other places) politics is? The reason being that the enthusiasm with which you take up discussion is quite admirable, but your penchant for the emperical off sets this by limiting discussion to how things appear at face value and again that face value is your own take on things, with no sensitivity to the perception of the people of whom you speak.

  For example your last post here outlines a haphazard chronological account of cause and effect that has led to the successive re-election of Thaksin, according to how you THINK other people might have thought at the time of each election (basically your account of other people’s rationale for voting aka rationality) and then conclude that there is only two possibilities that could see people want Thaksin re-elected again, both of which are just pure naivity. Your account (not unlike other contributors here) reduces the voting peasant’s rationale to issues of personality politics and an unfounded notion of linear rational peasant action…a reflection of the structure of your own thought and those who share your sentiments on this site, rather than anything related to the rationality of the people you speak of.

  In brief, you and many others here are taken up with the media representations of the situation, and are overlooking vast tracts of social and political landscape in favour of personality politics which only reflects just how out of touch you are with the people you speak of…vote buying is a reality (regardless of how effective it may or may not seem to the western rationale of “just take the money and don’t vote” renown) and so are a whole plethora of other factors and practices and motivations all of which your dependency on your own rationality would appear to blind you to the possibility of….

  On the point of Hitler you might like to consider that it is no secret that Thais have a predisposition towards facism…I amnot condoning it just offering it up as point of reference for how you thinkabout what is going there now…

• 8 nganadeeleg // Nov 13, 2006 at 7:55 pm

  Nirut, the only way I can explain my enthusiasm and interest in politics is that perhaps I’ve got too much time on my hands.

  Not being an academic, I prefer to be direct and get to the point rather than produce copious amounts of rationale. It’s a throwback to my school/uni days where I hated producing all the padding (waffle) needed to play the game. I’m too old to change now, and I still dislike reading academic papers because I just want to see the conclusion with a few pertinent reasons why that conclusion was reached.

  The chronoligical account of possible reasons to vote for Thaksin was my attempt at looking at the picture ASSUMING ‘vote buying’ did NOT exist, or was not important (as Andrew and a few others appear have been implying).
  The picture would look different if vote buying did exist.

  I have already posted in other threads that I do think vote buying is a factor, and in my personal experience it is a factor in the rural areas I have visited.
  However, my personal experience is pre the Thaksin era, and also in the central rice farming rural region. In fact I will admit to having never travelled further north than Autthaya – at this time, the best thing I like about the Northern regions is the mor lam music. I could go on to say I have a few north eastern thai friends, and draw some conclusions about their political awareness – but that would not be appropriate on an academic site because my sample group is too small and my friends might not be truly representative.
  I’m not predujiced against the northern thai people, and only chose not to travel north because all the farang that recommended I go up north happened to be into the drug culture. I may make the effort to go north next time I am there.

  Now, the reason I tried to apply a rationale for voting for Thaksin was that another of Andrew’s contentions seems to be that the urban notion that the rural poor are politically unsophisticated is wrong.

  The way I see it (in my direct way of looking at things) you cannot have it both ways:
  Either the rural poor are politically sophisticated, and vote buying is not a factor. Therefore they are rational voters – if this is the case, I am still waiting for possible reasons why they would continue to suport Thaksin, apart from the two I so naively proposed.
  OR
  They are not politically sophisticated.

  This is not an attempt to denigrate the rural poor (or colonialism)
  They are a victim of their of circumstances and surroundings (as we all are)

  I could go on about superstition, voodoo & religion now, but to further that discussion I really think we need a psychologists input about the the need for humans to have such beliefs.

• 9 Nirut // Nov 13, 2006 at 9:54 pm

  Hobby, I don’t think this site has a preference either way for academic or non-academic contribution, a strength I hope it maintains as, as worrisome or tediuos as some posts (such as mine) may be, this is one of very few forums that bring the two perspectives together in a constructive dialogue. It would appear so long as a good debate is had by all (I assume from the non-censorship code that I have seen in play here) that anyone can jump in and have an equal share of the “microphone”.

  I must take exception to your summation on academic perspectives being padded with waffle and think that what you mean to say is that you have little patience for the complexities and subtleties that academics might consider important to any consideration of an issue or topic or problem (however you wish to phrase it).

  Your take on the psychological dimensions of practice in the realm of people’s beliefs is what is called a functionalist approach to studying social and cultural phenomena and it doesn’t have much currency as it is a teleological argument predicated on sets of errouneous assumptions regarding social or cultural practice (the details of which can be found in many a tome of which Evans-Pritchard’s book is one) in particular that a practice exists for its perceived function (effect).

  Having said that I applaud your comment regarding the political sophistication of the rural voters. It is interesting and important (I think actually pivotal ) point to the discussions on this site and should be receiving more attention than it has thus far…

  In an earlier thread I raised the issue of Andrew speaking on behalf of the rural voters and questioned his position as I saw it simply as a displacing of the urban middle-class that he was critiquing without actually getting to the heart of the problem. Failure to address this problem properly in the discussions is due I think to the critics (Andrew et al) commenting on the rural voters from the same position as the “urban middle-class” they are critiquing. That is they are no more or less familiar with the rural population than each other and so are left guessing…

  I have watched a number of elections in Central and Northeast Thailand both pre and post Thaksin and have seen vote buying and know it is an ongoping practice. Your and Andrew’s interest in it at the level of its efficacy in actually securing votes in a quid pro quo fashion isn’t a fruitful way of going about the issue on two grounds. Firstly, to ask such a question simplifies the issue/ practice to a level of expecting efficacy to be measurable in purely economic terms and sees decision making reduced to the economic part of the exchange alone…something most anthropologists understand to be a bit of a reductionism. Secondly, it overlooks the vote buyers and their rationale and fails to account for what they are doing (in their own terms). In effect economic rationalism is substituted for rural voter’s logics of practice and the lack of political sophistication (as seen from the urban middle-class) is replaced with a view of political culture that asserts no variation across cultures, a kind of homogenised political landscape that sees all practice explainable in the observers/commentators own terms…veritably the death of culture as we know it…

  My suggestion, without actually sharing specific data on the issue, is to look at who are all the actors in a voting situation and understand them as people, interconnected with sets of personal individual and group relations and stop looking at the election process from the rather ideological perspective of certain class fractions and international observers where ideas of transparency and good governance structure questions. For example there is no point in an election where non or extra-social forces come into play…there is no point where voters, voting boxes, vote transportation, vote counting is removed from the social system where they originate…nor is the act of voting ever separated from the social world in which it takes place with the exception of the brief moment that people step into the booth and vote, which is not done to secure the vote from tampering as some may think, but to protect the privavcy of the individual…a privacy that seems to take on mammoth proportions in the face of threats by political heavies and their thugs (in the imaginations of the urban critics of rural voters who vote for Thaksin and their international critics Andrew etc.) but has never really been unpoacked or investigted through long term observation. The numerous kamakarn and what not that are employed to ensure transparency are part of this system and so on…

  Beyond this there seems to be little if any consderation for the political history of the rural voters under question and how this articulates with contemporary political culture…so much is overlooked…

  Anyway, suffice it to say for now that we might ber better off to think about what political acuity or sophistication looks like from the perspective of a rural voter and go from there…

• 10 Vichai N. // Nov 14, 2006 at 1:50 am

  nganadeeleg November 13th, 2006 at 9:51 am.

  I like that post .. straight to the point, no waffling.

  Nirut on the other hand seem to enjoy displaying his convoluted style impressed in his own mastery of the incomprehensible.

  nganadeeleg I did not see anyone reponding coherently to this particular post.

• 11 nganadeeleg // Nov 14, 2006 at 9:15 am

  Thanks for the support Vichai.

  Nirut has vast knowledge, and I value his opinion.

  There are many subtlties, complexities, nuances involved in Thai politics (not to mention cronyism) but overall I still think it was necessary to take one step back to move forward again.

Leave a Comment